Browse regulations

Regulation establishes the operational procedures for military conscription, including birthday-based random lottery, age-priority selection groups (18.5-34), induction order issuance, and postponement categories for education, emergencies, religious holidays, and professional exams.

Conscription violates fundamental liberty and property rights; this draft framework has been dormant for 50+ years while an all-volunteer military suffices; maintaining it perpetuates a coercive power, wastes resources, and lowers the barrier to reinstating an immoral system.

Procedural rules for the Selective Service System covering deemed abandonment of rights, deemed filing dates for documents, and methods for transmitting orders to registrants.

Enforces an unconstitutional registration mandate violating liberty and Tenth Amendment; unseen costs include normalizing federal coercion, sustaining a costly bureaucracy, and enabling future conscription infrastructure. Even minimal compliance contributes to the $2 trillion regulatory burden.

These regulations establish guidelines for the Selective Service System's local and district appeal boards, including uncompensated volunteer service, citizenship and residency requirements, appointment criteria, oath requirements, removal authority, and information restrictions. The system serves as a standby mechanism for potential conscription.

Keeping this regulation sustains the administrative framework for conscription, violating core libertarian principles of individual liberty and voluntary exchange. Hidden costs include bureaucratic inertia, regulatory capture, normalization of state labor control, and the chilling effect on personal autonomy. The system's existence distorts the labor market and perpetuates a coercive institution antithetical to limited government.

Establishes the organizational structure and procedures for the Selective Service System, including the Director's authority, National Appeal Board, regional/state/local boards, district appeal boards, area offices, compensation, delegation, and operational rules.

This regulation sustains a costly bureaucracy for a dormant draft system, imposing annual taxpayer expenses and a latent threat to liberty. The unseen burden includes distorting life decisions of registrants and normalizing conscription infrastructure that violates self-ownership.

Definitions and administrative provisions governing the Selective Service System, which administers mandatory registration for potential military conscription under the Military Selective Service Act. Includes classification categories, board structures, procedural rules, and jurisdictional definitions.

Conscription violates fundamental individual liberty by granting the state claim over persons' labor and lives. The mere existence of a registration system for forced military service contradicts founding principles of limited government and self-ownership. Unseen costs include distorted career/life decisions from the threat of coercion, administrative bloat, and the moral hazard of expanding state power. A free society requires voluntary military service; the all-volunteer force has sufficed since 1973.

This regulation establishes uniform policies and procedures for discharge review boards (DRBs) to evaluate administrative discharges and dismissals of military personnel under 10 U.S.C. 1553. It provides guidelines for review processes, standards for determining propriety and equity of discharges, procedures for hearings, and mechanisms for public access to DRB documents through a reading room.

This regulation creates a costly bureaucratic apparatus for second-guessing military discharge decisions that properly belong to military commanders. The discharge review process undermines military discipline and chain of command by allowing former service members to challenge decisions long after separation. It imposes significant administrative costs on the military services, creates a complex appeals system that can be exploited by those seeking to evade consequences of misconduct, and represents federal overreach into what should be internal military personnel matters. The reading room and extensive documentation requirements add unnecessary compliance burdens without providing commensurate benefits to military readiness or national security.

Prohibits discrimination against handicapped persons in DoD programs receiving federal financial assistance, covering employment, facility access, and program modifications including reasonable accommodations and accessibility requirements.

Americans would be worse off if handicapped persons were excluded from federal programs and employment opportunities. This regulation ensures equal access to services, reasonable workplace accommodations, and prevents discrimination that would harm vulnerable citizens who rely on federal assistance.

This regulation governs the exchange, distribution, and redemption of U.S. currency and coin, including procedures for mutilated, unfit, and uncurrent currency. It authorizes Federal Reserve banks to distribute currency to depository institutions, sets criteria and processes for redeeming damaged paper currency through the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and outlines handling of worn or fused coins, counterfeit detection, and fraud prevention.

Deleting this regulation would leave Americans with legitimately damaged cash (from accidents, disasters, or normal wear) with no guaranteed recourse to recover their property, disproportionately harming cash-dependent households. Only the federal government can issue currency to replace destroyed notes; a consistent, transparent, and fraud-resistant redemption process—established by law—prevents arbitrary denial of claims and maintains public trust in the monetary system. Private alternatives cannot replicate this essential sovereign function.

Regulation covers U.S. Mint operations: production/sales of medals and numismatic coins, FOIA procedures for records disclosure, and detailed civil penalty enforcement for misuse of Mint names, symbols, and titles. Includes procedural timelines, appeal rights, and penalty assessments up to $25,000.

These provisions create unnecessary procedural bureaucracy with negligible offsetting benefits. Mint's commercial operations could function under standard business practices; FOIA compliance follows broader Treasury procedures; civil enforcement uses redundant processes that could be consolidated under general agency administrative rules. The regulation imposes internal compliance costs and complex timelines without demonstrating superior outcomes to streamlined alternatives.

The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) provides for the award of attorney fees and other expenses to eligible individuals and entities who prevail against federal agencies in certain administrative proceedings. The Act covers adversary adjudications pending between 1981-1984, applies to Treasury Department proceedings under specific statutes, and establishes eligibility criteria based on net worth and employee count. It sets fee limits at $75/hour and requires detailed documentation of expenses.

Americans would be worse off if EAJA was deleted because it provides essential legal recourse for individuals and small entities against government overreach. Without it, the government could pursue frivolous or unjust administrative actions against citizens knowing they couldn't afford to defend themselves, effectively eliminating due process for those without deep pockets.

This regulation establishes the federal framework for surface coal mining operations in Oregon, defining applicable rules, permit requirements, environmental standards, and enforcement mechanisms under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977.

Creates costly bureaucratic compliance burden that raises energy prices, protects incumbent coal interests from competition, and duplicates state environmental protections already in place under Oregon law. The regulatory apparatus serves special interests rather than consumers or the environment.

Federal regulatory program implementing the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 for surface coal mining operations in Michigan on non-federal, non-Indian lands. Includes comprehensive permit requirements, performance standards, bonding, inspections, enforcement, and civil penalties. Coordinates with numerous Michigan state laws and preempts conflicting state provisions.

This represents unconstitutional federal overreach into traditional state police powers over land use, mining, and environmental regulation. Michigan already has adequate state laws (Reclamation of Mining Lands Act, Farmland Preservation, Solid Waste Management, etc.) that can properly address local conditions. The federal program imposes disproportionate compliance costs on small operators—30% higher per employee than large corporations—creating barriers to entry and protecting incumbents. The extensive permitting bureaucracy, 60-day+ review timelines, and complex federal standards distort market incentives, reduce coal supply, and increase energy costs for all Americans without demonstrable justification over state regulation. The Tenth Amendment reserves these matters to Michigan.

This regulation implements the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act in Georgia, establishing comprehensive federal requirements for surface coal mining operations on non-federal lands. It incorporates by reference detailed federal performance standards, permit processing requirements, inspection, enforcement, and penalty provisions, while preempting conflicting Georgia state laws but allowing more stringent state regulations to coexist.

This federal program imposes substantial compliance costs and bureaucratic oversight on Georgia's coal mining industry, duplicate state environmental regulations, and erodes Tenth Amendment federalism by federalizing a traditional state police power. The externalities from mining—water pollution, land degradation, safety risks—can be adequately addressed through Georgia's existing robust environmental laws (Safe Dams Act, Solid Waste Management, Air Quality Control) and market mechanisms like tort liability. The unseen costs include regulatory capture, barriers to small operators, and distorted resource allocation, while the federal program provides no clear marginal benefits over state regulation.

This regulation establishes procedures for states and Indian tribes to submit reclamation plans for abandoned mine lands to the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) for approval under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). It requires detailed plans covering administrative structure, funding policies, project prioritization, and coordination with other programs. OSM must approve plans within 90 days after public hearing and compliance review. The regulation also governs plan amendments, suspensions, and special provisions for certified entities allowing construction of public facilities related to mining.

This regulation federalizes what should be a state and local matter, violating Tenth Amendment principles. The detailed federal approval requirements create a regulatory bottleneck that delays reclamation while imposing significant administrative costs on states. The revolving door risk is evident: federal bureaucrats can suspend state programs, creating leverage over state policy. The compliance burden disproportionately harms smaller states and tribes with limited resources. Abandoned mine reclamation is a legitimate state concern that could be addressed through state-funded programs, private liability under state tort law, or market-based solutions—without federal oversight that centralizes decision-making and prevents local innovation. The hidden tax of federal bureaucratic overhead exceeds any marginal benefit from federal standardization.

This regulation authorizes the Office of Surface Mining (OSM), states, or Indian tribes to conduct reclamation on private land and recover costs through liens when reclamation increases property value. It establishes appraisal procedures, lien filing requirements, waiver conditions, and satisfaction mechanisms for reclamation work on private property.

This regulation creates a coercive lien system that violates property rights by allowing government agencies to claim ownership interests in private land based on improvements they make. The system distorts property markets, creates bureaucratic overhead, and enables regulatory capture where agencies can manipulate appraisal standards to maximize their claims. Private landowners should have the right to contract for reclamation services without government-imposed liens, and market mechanisms should determine compensation rather than bureaucratic appraisal processes.